6.  The applicants are:
(1)  Mr Nikolay Ivanovich Malysh, born in 1949,
(2)  Mr Vasiliy Aleksandrovich Bogomolov, born in 1944,
(3)  Mr Sergey Stepanovich Iglin, born in 1949,
(4)  Ms Zinaïda Aleksandrovna Sannikova, born in 1954,
(5)  Ms Lyubov Vasilyevna Nazarenko, born in 1953, and
(6)  Mr Sergey Nikolaevich Malysh, born in 1979.
7.  All the applicants are Russian nationals living in the Amur Region. They are all holders of Urozhay-90 bonds.
8.  In 1987 the General Secretary of the USSR Communist Party Mikhail Gorbachev presented his “basic theses”, which laid the political foundation for economic reform heralding the transition to a market economy. Several laws were enacted which opened up the State-dominated planned economy to private enterprise. However, the Government preferred to keep control over consumer prices rather than leaving them to be determined by the free market.
9.  By 1990 Government spending increased sharply as a growing number of unprofitable enterprises required State support, whereas more resources were diverted to subsidise consumer prices. At the same time, the elimination of central control over production decisions, especially in the consumer-goods sector, led to a breakdown in traditional supply-demand relationships. This resulted in pervasive shortages of food and basic consumer goods. The Government reacted by introducing ration stamps for food and certain hygiene articles.
10.  In addition to ration stamps, the Government of the Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic (RSFSR)[1] put into circulation several types of so-called “commodity bonds” (товарные чеки) which gave their bearers the right to purchase consumer goods, such as refrigerators, washing machines, tape recorders and passenger cars. The Urozhay-90 (“Harvest-90”) bonds were one of many types of bonds; they were distributed among agricultural workers and companies which had sold grain and other agricultural produce to the State in 1990 and 1991. Those bonds were designed to encourage agricultural workers to sell produce to the State in exchange for the right to priority purchasing of goods in high demand (see paragraph 43 below). The State paid workers for the produce at fixed prices and also gave them bonds in amounts proportionate to the value of the produce sold.
11.  The Urozhay-90 bonds were not legal tender, but they had a certain nominal value indicated on their face. That value determined the maximum purchase price of consumer goods which could be sold on production of the bonds. The bonds were not intended for payment but merely for certification of the right to purchase specific goods; the sale of goods was conditional on payment of the full purchase price by the bond-holder and production of the bonds for the same amount. The bonds were not registered in the person's name or otherwise personalised and the Government Resolution did not prevent them from being transferred among individuals and legal entities.
12.  On 2 January 1992 the Russian Government decided to put an end to the regulation of retail prices. Shops began to fill up with merchandise but prices increased at a staggering speed (the inflation rate in 1992 was 2,600%). In March 1992, the Government established that goods available under the bonds would be sold at the prices fixed before 2 January 1992 (see paragraph 44 below).
13.  In August 1992 the Government introduced the possibility of buying out the bonds with a coefficient of 10. In 1994, the coefficient was raised to 70 (see paragraphs 45 and 46 below). It appears that a significant number of bonds were bought out by the State before the buyout operations were stopped in 1996 (see paragraph 48 below).
14.  In 1995 the status of the commodity bonds was codified in the Commodity Bonds Act passed by Parliament (see paragraph 47 below). Its text was very laconic, shorter than one page, but it purported to cover every type of commodities bonds issued in previous years. Section 1 recognised the commodity bonds as part of the internal debt of the Russian Federation; section 2 fixed at ten years the limitation period for the obligations arising out of commodity bonds (the starting date was not specified); section 3 required the Government to adopt a programme for settlement of the internal debt.
15.  In 2000 the Government presented the programme for settlement of the internal debt (see paragraph 50 below). It covered every type of commodity bond, save for the Urozhay-90 bonds. A few months before the Commodity Bonds Act was amended so as to provide that the settlement of the debt under the Urozhay-90 bonds would be regulated by a special federal law (see paragraph 49 below).
16.  Between 2003 and 2009 the application of section 1 of the Commodity Bonds Act was suspended in the part concerning the Urozhay-90 bonds, in accordance with the laws on the federal budget for each successive year (see paragraph 51 below).
17.  In 2009 Parliament passed a law on the buyout of the Urozhay-90 bonds and the Government issued implementing regulations which set out a detailed procedure for buyout of the bonds (see paragraphs 52 and 53 below).
18.  The applicants Mr Nikolay Malysh and Mr Vasiliy Bogomolov are holders of Urozhay-90 bonds with a total nominal value of 30,110 and 30,000 non-denominated Russian roubles (RUR) respectively.
19.  In 2001 Mr Nikolay Malysh and Mr Bogomolov brought an action against the Russian Government and the Ministry of Finance, seeking compensation for the damage incurred through the State's continued failure to effect payment under the bonds.
20.  After several rounds of judicial proceedings, on 13 January 2003 the Tambovskiy District Court of the Amur Region refused their claim for the following reasons:
“At present the State programme for settlement of the internal debt in the period 2001 to 2004 has been developed and is being implemented. The Commodity Bonds Act described the debt arising out the Urozhay-90 bonds as a medium-term debt. Accordingly, pursuant to Article 98 § 2 of the Budget Code of the Russian Federation, the maturity date has not yet occurred. It follows that the executive bodies of the Russian Federation are now taking measures for the settlement of the debt to the plaintiffs. In these circumstances, the court cannot find that any acts or failures to act on the part of the defendant have caused any damage to the plaintiffs.”
21.  On 19 February 2003 the Amur Regional Court upheld that judgment on appeal.
22.  The applicant Mr Nikolay Malysh also holds Urozhay-90 bonds with a total nominal value of RUR 582,665.
23.  On 5 December 2002 he sued the Russian Government and the Ministry of Finance for the damage incurred through the State's continued failure to effect payment under these bonds.
24.  On 4 March 2003 the Tambovskiy District Court of the Amur Region refused his claim for the same reasons as those given in the above-quoted judgment of 13 January 2003.
25.  On 23 April 2003 the Amur Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal.
26.  The applicant Mr Sergey Iglin is the holder of Urozhay-90 bonds with a total nominal value of RUR 152,200.
27.  On 5 December 2002 he sued the Russian Government and the Ministry of Finance for the damage incurred through the State's continued failure to effect payment under these bonds.
28.  On 20 February 2003 the Tambovskiy District Court of the Amur Region refused his claim for the same reasons as those given in the above-quoted judgment of 13 January 2003.
29.  On 28 March 2003 the Amur Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal.
30.  The applicant Ms Zinaïda Sannikova is the holder of Urozhay-90 bonds with a total nominal value of RUR 223,170.
31.  On 5 December 2002 she sued the Russian Government and the Ministry of Finance for the damage incurred through the State's continued failure to effect payment under these bonds.
32.  After several rounds of judicial proceedings, on 1 July 2003 the Blagoveshchensk Town Court of the Amur Region refused her claim because a federal law governing the procedure for the settlement of the debt arising out of the Urozhay-90 bonds had not yet been adopted and because the law on the 2003 federal budget had suspended the application of the Commodity Bonds Act in the part concerning Urozhay-90 bonds.
33.  On 6 August 2003 the Amur Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal.
34.  The applicant Ms Lyubov Nazarenko is the holder of Urozhay-90 bonds with a total nominal value of RUR 271,855.
35.  On 5 December 2002 she sued the Russian Government and the Ministry of Finance for the damage incurred through the State's continued failure to effect payment under these bonds.
36.  On 19 March 2003 the Blagoveshchensk Town Court of the Amur Region refused her claim because a federal law governing the procedure for the settlement of the debt arising out of the Urozhay-90 bonds had not yet been passed and because the law on the 2003 federal budget had suspended the application of the Commodity Bonds Act in the part concerning Urozhay-90 bonds.
37.  On 18 April 2003 the Amur Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal.
38.  The applicant Mr Sergey Malysh is the holder of Urozhay-90 bonds with a total nominal value of RUR 222,820.
39.  On 5 December 2002 he sued the Russian Government and the Ministry of Finance for the damage incurred through the State's continued failure to effect payment under these bonds.
40.  After several rounds of judicial proceedings, on 27 March 2003 the Blagoveshchensk Town Court of the Amur Region refused his claim. It referred to the case-law of the Constitutional Court to the effect that:
“...the balance between the rights and lawful interests of persons who are creditors of the State, on the one hand, and all other persons, on the other hand, may only be fixed in the form of an act of the federal legislature.” (decision of 21 December 2000)
41.  As no such act had yet been passed, the court dismissed Mr Sergey Malysh's action.
42.  On 7 May 2003 the Amur Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal.